Cloudworks is no longer accepting new user registrations, and will be closing down on 24th June 2019. We hope to make a read-only archive of the site available soon after.
Activity: 60 minutes: Redesigning a Level
Cloud created by:
8 July 2010
Level 1 of your Programme
Start from scratch thinking about Level 1 of your programme and note that, under the new SR2, the only constraints on you are the volume of “stuff” in the whole Level = 120 credits and that Study and Summative Assessment must be tied together by defined Learning Outcomes:
Summative Assessments (Assessment Blocks 120 credits)
Study activities, resources, support, formative assessments (Study Blocks 120 credits)
By the way, teamwork is the order of the day.
Group activity: (10 minutes)
Define a single Overall Chunky Learning Outcome for the Level that you feel captures the essence of successful Level 1 output.
Subgroup 1 activity: (25 minutes)
What range and types of activities, resources, support, formative assessments would support/motivate efficiently and effectively the achievement of the Chunky Learning Outcome? Using this view of the Level, come up with a number of less-chunky Learning Outcomes (LOs) (perhaps one or two each for Knowledge and Understanding, Cognitive Skills and Other / Transferrable Skills) which together represent the chunky outcome. If you have time, come up with a partitioning for the study blocks which naturally reflects your thinking – what are your criteria for the partitioning decisions?
Subgroup 2 activity – completely independently of Subgroup 1: (25 minutes)
What range and types of Assessments would be able to test the Chunky Learning Outcome efficiently and effectively, would properly engage/motivate all students and (if at all possible) support their learning? Using this view of the Level, come up with a number of less-chunky LOs (perhaps one or two each for Knowledge and Understanding, Cognitive Skills and Other / Transferrable Skills) which together represent the chunky outcome and are properly assessable by the range of Assessments you have defined. If you have time, come up with a partitioning of the Level into assessment blocks which naturally reflects your thinking – what are your criteria for the partitioning decisions?
Combined Group Activity: (10 minutes)
Compare and critique the Learning Outcomes from your two subgroups. Are they radically different or are they similar? Are they even compatible? Given that we have to define a common set of Learning Outcomes for the Level which is assessed by the summative assessment and which is supported/motivated by the study provision, how do we get there? Is the “study view” set of LOs “better” than the “assessment-view” set or vice-versa and if so, why? Go back to the Chunky Learning Outcome – does it help?
Are Learning Outcomes enough to form the glue that binds the study and assessment blocks into a “Level” - or do we need something else? In other words, although a Level has to be formally defined in terms of study blocks, assessment blocks and learning outcomes (in order to still be compatible with the modular provision paradigm in the sector and to provide some organisational structure) is that still too constrained – i.e. should we be thinking even more holistically about a Level (and indeed the programme) during the design and then mapping the result on to the block paradigm? The correct answer here is YES! Onwards then to Activity 2!